MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132897952

The Impacts of Neighbourhood Competition, Local Species Richness, and the Tree’s Species on Tree Health Condition in a Toronto Urban Cemetery

2023· other· en· W7132897952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Farhat

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessNeighbourhood (mathematics)Tree healthForest healthMapleUrban forestryUrban ecologyUrban forest
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neighbourhood effects have been shown to affect the health and growth conditions of trees in natural forests and plantations. In this study, we looked into the impacts of neighbourhood competition, local species richness, and tree species on the heath conditions of urban trees in the Necropolis cemetery in Toronto. The properties examined for each tree were its visually inspected health condition, diameter at breast height, species, crown diameter, and the longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates. The distance cut-off for each neighbourhood was chosen to be 20 meters to include the rooting zones of the largest trees in the sample. Data analysis was limited to Norway maple (Acer platanoides), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Norway spruce (Picea abies), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) due to the small sample sizes of other tree species. The results showed that the local species richness had a significant effect on tree health conditions with improvements to health being apparent at 4 or more species in local neighbourhoods. The focal tree’s species also had a significant effect on the health condition of focal trees. Manitoba maple and silver maple were shown to have significantly poorer health conditions than the other species, which could be due to silver maple’s over-maturing and Manitoba maple’s shade-intolerance and growing in the unmanaged sections of the park. It is recommended that the species richness of local neighbourhoods be increased, and that the trees be spaced out in order to allow sunlight to small trees, as well as mulching the small trees’ rootzones and limiting the planting of silver maple.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→